ICCROM_ICS03_ReligiousHeritage_en

Figure 1 Ketubbah (Jewish marriage contract), Ferrara, Italy, 1731. The Israel Museum.

Figure 2 Ketubbah, Rome, Italy, 1857. The Israel Museum.

this impressive Ketubbah sliced in the centre, leaving the ‘X’ mark as apparent damage. Any attempt to ‘hide’ this damage through conservation (retouching) will result in greater damage. This is because the ‘X’ mark is a sign that indicates that the marriage was not as beautiful as the Ketubbah, and there was a divorce process. The document must, therefore, be kept and protected in its present state, since misinterpreting this mark as ordinary damage can result in losing important information about the history of the document. The conservation procedures in this respect will focus on the best plan to preserve this fragile document for display and storage.

Because religious objects demand special consideration when collected, displayed, stored or undergoing conservation treatment, it is the duty and responsibility of the conservator to be aware of the religious implications of a sacred object that needs conservation treatments. The Passover Haggadah is a traditional narrative prayer book for the Passover Holiday, supplemented by hymns and songs. The Judaica collection in the Israel Museum contains many types of printed Passover Haggadahs and man-

uscripts, which date back to as early as the fourteenth century. The example of the Amsterdam Haggadah, dated 1895, is wood-block printed and hand-coloured with watercolours (Fig. 3, before treatment). The book needed to be restored due its bad physical condition, the binding was broken and worn, and the pages were suffering from tears, paper losses, stains and dirt. A successful conservation process such as the one for this Passover Haggadah, (Fig. 4 after treatment) could be a failure from the religious point of view. For example, a perfect restoration of the binding using unacceptable materials such as pigskin would be disastrous in this sense.

Jewish religion includes basic laws of purity and impurity. It is important to clarify that the Torah does not associate tummah (impurity) and taharah (purity) with good and bad. The entire process involves the concept of life and death, and the symbolic emphasis that the Torah places on serving God with optimism and vigour. So long as there is life, there is the opportunity to grow in one’s relationship with God. If one takes the hide of a kosher animal, processes it into parchment, and writes upon it the words of

104 Conservation of Living Religious Heritage

Figure 3 (ABOVE) Amsterdam Haggadah, dated 1895, before treatment. The Israel Museum.

Figure 4 (TOP RIGHT) Amsterdam Haggadah, dated 1895, after treatment. The Israel Museum.

Figure 5 (BOTTOM RIGHT) Aleppo Codex, dated 910 AD.

Permanent loan. The Israel Museum.

the Torah or uses it for bindings, that parchment or skin undergoes an incredible transformation. It has attained a level of holiness. Jewish law permits the use (for conservation, in this sense) only of kosher materials for repairing sacred material. This means that one must assume the set of regulations and restrictions for kosher food. The pig is among the few animals that are forbidden to Jews. Jews are commanded to know the signs that distinguish the types of animals that it is forbidden to eat from the types that are permitted. Anything that comes from a forbidden animal (milk, eggs, etc.) is forbidden. An animal is permitted only if it has a cleft hoof and chews the cud. There are ten permitted types (three domestic, seven wild). All marine creatures are forbidden except for those having fins and scales.

The following example reflects another case of conservation practice in the light of religious restrictions and limitations. In 1996 an intense sixyear project of conservation of the tenth century Aleppo Codex (Fig. 5) was completed, followed by a publication (Maggen 1991). This manuscript is the oldest known bible written in Hebrew. The conser-

vation process included the consolidation of fragile inks, integrations and reinforcement of structural damages of the parchment, and surface cleaning, and ended with the making of a special bookcase and a facsimile/dummy for permanent display. Conservation proposals were shared with the Orthodox Rabbinical authorities before the practical conservation was initiated. The conservation proposals were supported with respect and appreciation. However, it was requested by the religious representatives that the author follow the Jewish custom of wearing a hat (a kipa in Hebrew, a sign of Jewish believers), whenever the manuscript was to be handled.

There were no special comments from the religious authorities regarding surface cleanings using saliva on the manuscript, which could have been problematic. From a religious point of view, a person must treat a Torah scroll or any other holy text (such as the Aleppo Codex) with great honour. Human secretion such as spit and urine is regarded as impure. One should not spit in front of a Torah scroll or hold a Torah without its mantle. Surface cleaning using saliva is an old cleaning technique frequently used

10 • The conservation of sacred materials in the Israel Museum	105

by conservators. The saliva contains active enzymes which are efficient in breaking down surface dirt composed of fats and starches. In order to respect the request of the religious authorities, whenever this manuscript is on display, there is a note kindly requesting that visitors wear a hat while looking at the Aleppo Codex. Any decisions regarding the display or conservation of a sacred item should be done in consultation with religious authorities and with the maximum sensitivity. The knowledge and consciousness of religious implications regarding sacred material can contribute to a better understanding of these issues.

Conclusions

Sacred materials can pose many ethical and practical problems regarding their storage, conservation and display, as the examples described here have demonstrated. There are still some issues to be resolved and some restrictions which probably cannot be accepted by the professional conservation community. Returning to the example of the museum conservator’s enquiry quoted earlier, most of the suggested treatments would be feasible. However, since the conservator is not Jewish, the conservation cannot be done in conformity with a Jewish rabbinical Halacha point of view.

Other considerations have to do with selected conservation treatments and materials. These issues can reach a general understanding or modus vivendi with regard to Halacha concepts. But where is the line to be drawn between religion and conservation? The line between religious restrictions and conservation professional needs can result in conflict. In my opinion, the conservation field can and should find answers for most of the issues. However, some cases could be problematic, such as treatment of Torahs carried out by non-Jews.

Professionals such as doctors, engineers, architects, designers and others, could find themselves in the same situation, struggling to find the ‘golden path’ when professional needs encounter religion. It is with some regret to note that conflicts between archaeologists and ultra-Orthodox Jews have reached extreme levels of tension in Israel, leading to violence, hatred and social and political conflict. Archaeologists have been accused of sacrilege by excavating on the sites of ancient Jewish graveyards. More than once archaeological research was interfered with or stopped, or in order to prevent incidents were carried out sometimes at night.

Whenever there is a sacred object in a public or private cultural environment, it should receive special attention and consideration. Religious artefacts or sacred objects are at the heart of the emotions of

religious believers. We should always be aware and conscious of that.

Bibliography

Gaster, Moses (1974), The ‘Ketubbah’ (New York: Gross).

Maggen, Michael (1991), ‘Conservation of Aleppo Codex’, Restaurator 12, 116-130 (Copenhagen: Munskgaard).

Zabar¸ Shalom (1993), ‘Ketubbah’ The Art of Jewish Marriage Contract (New York: Rizzoli).

Endnotes

1From the Hebrew word meaning ‘to order’, this is the Jewish prayer book used for all days except special holidays.

2A traditional narrative prayer book for Passover Holiday, supplemented by hymns and songs.

3A decorative plaque inscribed with the Hebrew verse ‘I have set the Lord always before me’ (Psalms 16:8), hung in synagogues and Jewish homes as a reminder of God’s presence.

4Usually translated as ‘phylacteries’, these are box-like appurtenances that accompany prayer, worn by Jewish adult males at the weekday morning services. The boxes have leather thongs attached and contain scriptural excerpts. One box (with four sections) is placed on the head; the other (with one section) is customarily placed on the left arm, near the heart. The biblical passages emphasize the unity of God and the duty to love God and be mindful of him with all one’s heart and mind.

5The ‘Mezuzah’ (‘doorpost’) signifies the sanctity and blessing of the Jewish home. Actually, it is a portion of Holy Torah, inscribed in the same manner and script as a Torah. It is attached to the entrance door lintel of every Jewish home.

6A large, four-cornered shawl with fringes and special knots at the extremities, worn during Jewish morning prayers.

106 Conservation of Living Religious Heritage

11

The primary objective of this paper is to delineate the process of dialogue as a fundamental component of: the ecclesial approach towards cultural heritage; the relationship between the categories of assets of ecclesial cultural heritage; Church internal governance policy and the policy of the Holy See in relations with international organizations working in this field; and the working method of the Pontifical Commission for the Cultural Heritage of the Church. The Cathedral Workshops, an initiative organized by the Pontifical Commission in the year 2000, provide a concrete example of how this process of dialogue can create an intercultural community of solidarity at the international level in the field of cultural heritage.

[ Cristina Carlo-Stella]

Religious heritage as a meeting point for dialogue

the Cathedral Workshops experience

Dialogue: an essential part of the ecclesial approach towards cultural heritage

The process of dialogue can be considered the vital nucleus of the ecclesial approach towards cultural heritage. Evangelization is a fundamental task assigned to the Church by its founder Jesus Christ. In the context of this task, the Church community considers cultural heritage a primary pastoral instrument for conducting activities of worship, catechism, and charity within the ecclesial community or within society in general. Consequently, ecclesial cultural heritage has a precise functional purpose at the service of a community environment. It must therefore relate to and communicate with the community of faithful living in a specific territory, and on behalf of this community within the respective local society.

This implies a process of dialogue through which universal Church teachings (in regards to worship, catechism and charity) undergo inculturation or are implanted in the specific cultures of societies of each and every nation where Church communities have been established.

Inculturation implies that the dogmatic principles of Christian faith, as contained in Gospel teachings, remain the same, but the way they are taught and put into practice through local vernacular expressions by the local Church communities reflect the social and cultural traditions of the local territories. A symbiosis between unity and diversity, so often recommended nowadays by many international organizations, reflects the actual way the Christian Church has been founded, has developed through time, and the way it operates: unity of content in terms of dogmatic principles; diversity in the way the faith is adapted to each specific cultural and social reality characterizing humanity around the world.

Ecclesial cultural heritage thus embodies the principle of symbiosis between unity and diversity. This heritage is used to instigate, maintain, and enhance the process of dialogue necessary for the process of inculturation, which involves and implies cultural diversity. It is well known to scholars of Christian art how the entire development of ecclesial artistic heritage has given witness and gives witness to this process of osmosis, dialogue, translation of dogmatic content through a variety of formal expres-

11 • Religious heritage as a meeting point for dialogue	107

sions adopted by particular cultures throughout time.

At the same time, these various styles are called to serve the specific rituals of worship and charitable actions that characterize this religion: ‘the art of our own times from every race and country shall also be given free scope in the Church, provided it bring to the task of reverence and honour due to the sacred buildings and rites’ (SC1 123, Ch. 7). This principle is reiterated in the following passage from the revised Roman Missal: ‘Not only for the building of a church, but also for its furnishings, the Church is willing to accept the artistic style of any culture. She will permit adaptations to suit the religious outlook and customs of the various peoples provided only that they be compatible with the liturgical purposes for which the furnishings are designed…’ (RM2 Ch. 6, 287).

diAlogue beTween The vArious componenTs of ecclesiAl culTurAl heriTAge

The cultural heritage of the Church, whose production and development throughout time must be oriented towards a functional and community purpose, comprises both immovable and movable assets or resources. The material cultural heritage of the Church always reflects and should communicate the essential immaterial heritage, in other words the traditions of spirituality (the religious and devotional traditions, customs and practices of worship) characterizing Catholic faith. This immaterial heritage should be considered to be both the inspiring source responsible for the production of the material patrimony and the major reason behind the efforts to conserve and enhance the material forms. The functional nature and character of movable assets indirectly implies and requires a preservation policy that can safeguard their intimate relationship with the liturgical, devotional, religious environment for which they were produced. For this reason, an in situ policy has been recommended by the Church, whereby movable assets should never be detached from, but always valued in, the religious-liturgical or devotional, catechetical, or charitable environment for which they were created and for which they have been intended to serve.

However, in the history of the Church, changes in liturgical and devotional practices have either modified the production, or called for a re-evaluation of, ecclesial movable and immovable heritage, which may have caused displacement or dispersal. Today the phenomenon of displacement or dispersal has too often pointed the finger at Second Vatican Council instructions. But if one closely analyzes the content of

these Council documents, it becomes clear that this has occurred as a result of an unfortunate misunderstanding of liturgical reform and the renewal policy recommended. Council instructions underline, on the contrary, the need for dialogue and co-existence of styles and types of cultural heritage assets within the sacred and liturgical environment. Thus it is stated that the Church

‘…has admitted changes in material and style, or ornamentation prompted by the progress of technical arts with the passage of time…’ (SC 122, Ch. 7), and also ‘… in the course of the centuries she has brought into existence a treasury of art which must be preserved with every care (SC 123, Ch. 7). The revised Roman Missal contains the following: ‘…The Church always presses into her service the arts cultivated by the various nations and wishes to give them a place in her worship. While preserving artistic treasures of former times and adapting them to current needs she also encourages new developments in the arts….Artists are trained and works of art are selected by the Church so that faith and piety may be fostered by good and appropriate art….’ (RM 254, Ch. 5)

.

What may have created some uncertainties leading to the phenomenon of dispersal or even destruction is the evaluation criteria suggested for the liturgical space, and particularly for its movable assets and decorative features, whereby a relative preference is indicated for ‘that noble simplicity which it is possible to combine admirably with true art…’ (RM 287, Ch. 6) or, as stated in an excerpt from the same Second Vatican document, ‘…Ordinaries are to take care that in encouraging and favouring truly sacred art, they should seek for noble beauty rather than sumptuous display. The same principle applies also to sacred vestments and ornaments…’ (SC 124, Ch. 7).

The evaluation process was based on qualitative (and sometimes quantitive) criteria. But even in the context of these suggested evaluations, it is important to remember that the Second Vatican Council also strongly recommends that proper consultation procedures be followed as a necessary step of the actual decision-making process: ‘…When passing judgment on works of art, local ordinaries should ask the opinion of the diocesan commission on sacred art and – when occasion demands – the opinions of others who are experts… Ordinaries should ensure that sacred furnishings and works of value are not disposed of or destroyed, for they are ornaments in God’s house…’ (SC 126: Ch. 7).

108 ConservATIon of LIvInG reLIGIous HerITAGe

The process of diAlogue involved in church governAnce policy

In accordance with the governance structure and teachings of Jesus Christ, the Roman Catholic Church throughout its history consolidated a co-participative approach between the central government structure in Rome headed by the Pope and the Particular Church3 and Church communities established in the nations around the world. The latter, headed by their administrative and spiritual leader or Bishop, are in turn made up of smaller local parish communities led by pastors who are assisted in their ministry by the clergy and the faithful. Following the tradition of the early Apostolic community, this means that the Holy See is called to work closely and in communion with these Particular Churches.

As part of the inculturation process, the Bishops of each Particular Church in each nation are united in an Episcopal Conference in order to implement the directives issued by the Holy See central government in Rome. The latter, headed by the Pope, has a number of Dicasteries or Ministries assigned to the supervision of priority action areas inherent to the evangelizing and pastoral mission of the Universal Church throughout the world. These Dicasteries (or Pontifical Councils, Congregations, and Commissions) work in close collaboration with the Particular Churches around the world and their respective Episcopal Conferences, in order to implement the directives of the Universal Church. Since cultural heritage has been considered by the Universal Church a fundamental pastoral instrument to carry out its essential evangelizing mission, it is not surprising that one of these Dicasteries, the Pontifical Commission for the Cultural Heritage of the Church, has been assigned to supervise this specific field.

diAlogue As A fundAmenTAl criTeriA behind The work of The ponTificAl commission for The culTurAl heriTAge of The church

Dialogue has represented, at least so far, a major criterion guiding the work of the Pontifical Commission for the Cultural Heritage of the Church. The Pontifical Commission was established in 1988 by Pope John Paul II to emphasize that the cultural heritage of the Church was a priority area of concern, through which the Church can conduct its pastoral and evangelizing mission. The task of the Pontifical Commission is to encourage the Particular Churches around the world to strengthen and increase efforts for the proper conservation, preservation, promotion or enhancement of the cultural heritage of the Church as part of its pastoral mission. This has been achieved so far by:

•the consolidation of an information exchange network between all those nominated by the Bishops in the various dioceses around the world to work in this field of Church cultural heritage;

•the consolidation of contacts with and among the Particular Churches around the world at the episcopal conference level and diocesan levels, in order to encourage the establishment of proper structures that can assure adequate administration, supervision and promotion of cultural heritage issues (proper episcopal commissions, committees and offices); as well as with associations and societies working in this area (such as church archivists societies; international associations of church volunteers, and church museums);

•the drafting and distribution of specific documents on those different cultural heritage issues valued by Church doctrine and teachings as priority action areas (so far on church libraries; church archives; ecclesiastical museums; inventory and cataloguing of cultural heritage);

•consolidation of contacts and cooperation with governmental and non-governmental international and national organizations and entities working in this field (particularly the Council of Europe, OWHC, ICCROM, and ICOMOS). Dialogue with these organizations has involved

over the years active participation in and support for some of the major initiatives conducted at European and international level.

All four major actions involve the development of the dialogue criterion: between Church leaders and those charged to look after ecclesial cultural heritage within the individual Church communities; between Church leaders with their collaborators and local government authorities and experts in the field; among Church leaders at the episcopal conference level; between Particular Churches in the various nations; and between the Universal Church and international organizations.

The Cathedral Workshops Project: a practical experience of dialogue and cooperation

The Cathedral Workshops project offers a perfect example of the Holy See’s co-participation and support of international organizations’ commitment to strengthen dialogue at international level, and the contribution that the Pontifical Commission can make in this regard.

The project was planned as part of an overall program of activities sponsored by the Holy See on occasion of its participation in the Council of Europe’s Campaign on cultural heritage, Europe

11 • Religious heritage as a meeting point for dialogue	109

– a Common Heritage, which was launched for the year 2000. This campaign’s main purpose was to spread awareness in European citizens of the role of cultural heritage as an instrument to promote a re-discovery of their common European identity

– meaning also an appreciation of cultural heritage diversity – and strengthen a democratic society of peace, mutual respect and understanding. The rediscovery of a common European identity naturally entails becoming conscious of the common features of material and immaterial heritage that have shaped European culture. Keeping in mind this principal objective, the Holy See proposed to underline the role of religious cultural heritage, specifically ecclesial heritage, as a key factor.

The idea of choosing and organizing a series of workshops dedicated primarily to artistic crafts that have contributed in a special way towards the development of religious heritage in Europe, and to conceive these meetings as intercultural and interfaith forums, was inspired by two earlier activities conducted by the Cultural Heritage Committee of the Council of Europe. A previous study of the phenomenon of illicit trafficking of cultural assets had foreseen a series of inter-sectoral meetings of representatives of different departments or institutions that have either been combating this problem or have been affected by it. Inter-denominational meetings were thus held, since precious religious artistic movables are often the preferred prey, and these meetings produced an encouraging spirit of mutual collaboration and support. The second initiative entailed an overall evaluation of the effectiveness of legislative measures issued by the Council of Europe in the cultural heritage field. From this analysis, Recommendation R 81 13 on declining craft trades in Europe proved to be the most influential on national cultural heritage policies. This further strengthened the decision to orient the workshops discussions on specific issues concerning the preservation and promotion of craftsmanship in general.

The importance of dialogue and craftsmanship, as underlined by these two activities, led to the choice of a specific religious heritage typology which encompassed these two concepts as fundamental in its development: the cathedral. The project was thus called the ‘Cathedral Workshops’ to re-propose a reflection on how these religious buildings and their milieu responded and contributed to the development of these concepts. Just as the building of a cathedral represented a united venture of various artistic and scientific disciplines, so the workshops wanted to propose in an innovative manner an inter-disciplinary approach towards the crafts discussed. Experts and

scholars from different fields of competence (art history; conservation; liturgical science and theology; architecture; library science; and archaeology) as well as artists and craftsmen, from different cultural and religious backgrounds, were gathered together to share their expertise. Scholars, experts and artists who participated in the meetings represented: the Christian (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant), Jewish, and Islamic traditions; and the following countries: Armenia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, France, Germany, Great Britain, Greece, Holy See, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Scotland, Spain, Switzerland, The Netherlands, Turkey, and USA.

The most difficult aspect regarding the organization of the workshops was the selection of locations and crafts. The selection of locations depended upon the selection of crafts, which was done on the basis of one major criterion, that is, on the basis of those crafts that represented to the major denominations of Europe a principal and common denominator of artistic expression for the development of their religious heritage. The choice of locations to hold the workshops was made to cover as much as possible the major geographical regions of Europe (north, south, central, east and west) where the craft discussed was particularly developed and promoted on a European level. In each location chosen, the Pontifical Commission invited the Episcopal Conference to figure as principal host of the meeting, looking after the organization of the meeting premises and the lodging of the participants. The meetings were made possible thanks to the truly exemplary collaboration and support of local Church and government authorities.

The workshops were thus held in the following locations and on the following subjects: Venice, on mosaic craftsmanship in December 1999; Warsaw, on precious metals and liturgical or religious furnishings in April 2000; Cologne, on religious or sacred stone and bronze sculpture in September 2000; Malta, on the embroidery and production of religious and sacred vestments in September-October 2000; and Dublin, on sacred book arts and manuscript illumination in October 2000. In two instances, the subject also touched upon related secondary topics. In Warsaw, the broader issue of conservation, inventory methods, and preventive measures against illicit trafficking of religious or sacred precious movables was discussed. The topic addressed in Cologne, which could have represented a delicate issue for certain denominations, was geared to analyze, in a broader and more general way, the production of contemporary religious sculpture and the use of contemporary art in religious buildings.

110 Conservation of Living Religious Heritage

The inter-disciplinary, intercultural and interdenominational methodology promoted by the Cathedral Workshops made the sessions extremely enriching, constructive, and inspiring. The spirit of mutual collaboration and agreement is reflected in the conclusions that emerged from the discussions.

The proceedings of the Cathedral Workshops were published in 2003,4 and contain detailed documentation of each session. Here, some of the most important conclusions will be briefly summarized.

The workshops in Venice and Malta brought out several common concerns, for example the need to apply a proper preservation policy and to orient conservation procedures accordingly, as well as for an increased appreciation of and support for the crafts and artists working in these mediums on the part of ecclesial and religious communities. On a similar note, during the discussion session of the workshop in Venice, an appeal was made for proper recognition of professional training programs and professional technical schools on the part of government institutions in order to guarantee proper funding and compatibility of academic standards. An interesting point raised by the Malta workshop was the method of periodic re-utilization as an important preservation procedure of historic textile samples. In addition, it stressed the need to value properly and equally various types and productions of religious textiles, in some cases processes which strengthen the community dimension of religious and Church communities. Both workshops also concurred on the need for a more constructive dialogue between conservators – art historians – and craftsmen or artists working in the medium to gain an accurate understanding of the technique involved. Finally, they stressed the importance of encouraging the transmission of practical experience, know-how, and traditional procedures to younger generations, as both crafts today risk being underestimated and in some areas of the continent even of extinction.

The workshop in Warsaw led to a consensus on three major issues. It was felt that there was a need to work on a uniform methodology of cataloguing and inventorying procedures for religious and sacred movables that can consider the liturgical and religious use of the objects, thus properly considering their sacred nature and spiritual value, as well as the use of compatible computer programs. On this same point, a more intense exchange of information and collaboration on inter-denominational level but also between denominational groups, government authorities, and other groups—police force and museum staff—is needed in order to facilitate the identification and retrieval of stolen precious religious movables.

In Cologne, most of the discussion centred on the didactic role of sacred and religious sculpture, and the need to revitalize knowledge of religious iconography and symbolism, especially among young people. A group of local artists and sculptors held a debate on the latter issue, bringing to the fore the need to develop and strengthen better communication between themselves and Church and religious authorities in regard to the imagery and understanding of contemporary art in general. Viceversa, contemporary artists need to be more aware of the criteria followed by religious and ecclesial communities to value works suitable or adaptable to a religious, sacred and liturgical space. Dialogue, mutual respect, and collaboration were seen as the three fundamental ingredients to promote adequately the production of sacred art and sculpture, as well as to continue to endow religious and ecclesial environments with a quality-oriented artistic dimension that can share and contribute to the functional purposes assigned to them.

The Dublin workshop, on sacred book arts and the craftsmanship of manuscript illumination, once again stressed the importance of a deeper understanding of the techniques involved, but also of the religious and liturgical use of the texts that in some cases affected the stylistic and iconographic characteristics of the works. On the latter point, it was felt that an increased exchange of knowledge on interdenominational and inter-disciplinary level would be highly productive. A need to promote this craftsmanship so that it can be appreciated and developed by future generations was also stressed. In this regard, religious communities were called upon to play a more active role, as well as museums through exhibitions that present the intercultural aspect of the craft, while avoiding a syncretic or simplistic approach, and re-create the original milieu where the craft developed and spread. The exhibition organized in the Chester Beatty Library where the workshop was held provided a most inspiring example. In addition, it was stated that proper professional training and training school programmes should be devised and supported by governmental educational ministries to offer young people the opportunity to develop an interest in this field, as well as opportunities of employment, as is done in Ireland.

To conclude, we can say that all the workshops met successfully the objectives of the project. A spirit of sincere, close cooperation and dialogue emerged from all five meetings. What was a particularly enriching experience for all participants was a renewed awareness of shared problems and aims regarding the future of our precious religious cultural

11 • Religious heritage as a meeting point for dialogue	111

heritage, and how the various facets of the process of dialogue can be woven together to form innovative and inspiring methodologies. In addition, it became clear that too often the development of specific crafts has been constrained to specific geographical areas, and their appreciation to some disciplines more than others. Meetings such as the Cathedral Workshops can serve to enhance both development and appreciation on a European level. The organization and costs involved make projects like these quite demanding, and private sponsorship proves to be an important if not essential component. Nevertheless, the efforts are worthwhile. The Cathedral Workshop project concretely and practically demonstrated to us and to all involved how religious cultural heritage can indeed be a vital channel to spread and consolidate dialogue, mutual respect and collaboration between cultures and faiths. We hope that our experience will continue to be inspiring, particularly to those international organizations that are active not only in the cultural heritage field but also, on a more political level, in the building up of world-wide peace.

Endnotes

1SC refers to documents of the Second Vatican Council.

2RM refers to sections of the Roman Missal.

3A Particular Church is any of the individual constituent ecclesial communities that is in full communion with the Church of Rome.

4Pontifical Commission for the Cultural Heritage of the Church, Cathedral Workshops on Religious Arts and Crafts – Proceedings (Rome: Edindustria, 2003). Copies are available upon request from the Pontifical Commission for the Cultural Heritage of the Church.

112 ConservATIon of LIvInG reLIGIous HerITAGe

Contributors

DR MANDANA BARkeSHlI

Islamic Arts Museum Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

CHIeF BIDI (MoP)

Chief of Matabeleland, Zimbabwe.

JøRgeN BøyTleR

Head of the Moravian Church of Christiansfeld).

DR CRISTINA CARlo-STellA

Pontifical Commission of Cultural Heritage of the Church

PRoFeSSoR JANIS CHATzIgogAS

Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece.

DR NoBuko INABA

Japan Research Centre for International Cooperation in Conservation,

National Research Institute for Cultural Properties, Tokyo, Japan.

DR VAleRIe MAgAR

Conservation Specialist, ICCROM.

MICHAel MAggeN

Head of Paper Conservation, The Israel Museum, Jerusalem, Israel.

PATHISA NyATHI

Ministry of Education, Zimbabwe.

DR PAolA elISABeTTA SIMeoNI

Central Institute for Cataloguing and Documentation,

Ministry of Cultural Properties and Cultural Activities, Rome, Italy.

DeAN WHITINg

Maori Heritage, Historic Places Trust, New Zealand.

DR gAMINI WIJeSuRIyA

Project Manager, ICCROM.

PRoFeSSoR AMIR H. zekRgoo

International Institute for Islamic Thought and Civilization, International Islamic University, Malaysia.

Contributors 113